Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 23 BALLOT

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/29/02 at 7:38 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>>> Proposal 991/1: Fixing The Bandwidth (Wonko)
>>
>> No.  Too clumsy.  And it eliminates any definition of 1/2 a proposal, or
>how
>> 1/2 of a proposal can be made, yet it still provides a rule for its
>bandwidth.
>> And, if, as Wonko says, one rule can supercede the others, regardless of
>> having to obey ALL rules, this rule eliminates fractional bandwidth for
>club
>> props and zero bandwidth for judgment props.
>
>Dude, 1/2 props are defined in r19. As for judgment and fractional
>bandwidth, it doesn't eliminate them any more than the current version
>does.
>Decide for yourself whether it did or not.

Okay, my mistake there.  But your prop does do away with the basic condition for the Token of Proposals returning to the Bandwidth Gremlin.  After your prop, if the player who had the Token again receives the highest number of affirmative votes, e keeps the Token, but doesn't get a bandwidth increase.  Maybe the rich don't get richer that way, but neither do the poor.

>>> Proposal 1000/3: Crime Doesn't Pay (Wonko)
>>
>> No.  It's dependent on service malls, I don't like those floating grid
>cells,
>> and it doesn't say how cops come out of hiding.
>
>I could fix that if you vote SHELVE...

I'd mentioned the floating grid cells before.  Besides, it still doesn't say what happens when all the cells are full.

I dunno...Maybe you could do a total rewrite of this, but...there's just something about the whole thing I'm not comfortable with.  Maybe too many RL speeding tickets this month.

Sorry.  Still opposed.

>>> Proposal 1001/0: Wealthy Bastard goes Public (Wonko)
>>
>> No.  This is a violation of r578.G.1, which regulates the method by which
>> proposals can create societies.  Besides, I don't see why we should vote
>for
>> Wonko having a profit center.
>
>Proposals are allowed to have any change to the gamestate they want in
>them.
>The fact that r578.G.1 permits proposals to define societies is irrelevant
>-
>they could anyway.

This is back to your idea that a general case overrides the specific cases.  You say this is because the lower-numbered rule overrides the higher-numbered rule.  I say that only happens when there's a conflict.  When you've got one rule that says an action is permitted in general, and another rule that says it's restricted in particular, that's not a conflict.  So there's no override.  The rules work *gasp* together.

>>> Proposal 1002/0: Stop It! (Wonko)
>>
>> No.  We're all pains in the ass.  It's part of the definition of the
>game.
>>
>> BTW, I don't think this counts as a limerick, per r437.A.2.  The fourth
>line
>> has too many syllables.
>
>It's not measured in syllables, it's measured in poetic feet. Lots of poems
>do things like this.

Yes, but do lots of limericks?

My dictionary defines "poetic foot" as "a group of syllables that constitute a measure of a verse".  Sounds like it's measured in syllables to me.

So I guess it's up to the Administrator to know the exact definition of poetic feet, to see if the fourth line qualifies.  If a poetic foot is, say, like a measure of music, which has three beats (syllables) in it, then the fourth line is a beat too long.

Alternately, we can go by a statement once made that this game doesn't recognize english standard usage for words, which means a poetic foot isn't defined.  Which means none of your limerics ever qualified.

>>> Proposal 1004/2: Improving Speeders (Wonko)
>>
>> No, since it's dependent on WBE, which is a Wonko freebie and illegal in
>its
>> current form.
>
>Except WBE isn't illegal.

Yes it is.  See above.

>>> Proposal 1044/0: Been there, Done that, Bought the T-shirt (Wonko)
>>
>> No.  Titles will do nicely.
>
>It might as well be a title, it's just funnier.

Sorry, dude.  Not paying you to be funny.  Especially since you nuked my score.  (I now have to wonder...Did you nuke my score just so I'd want to vote for the proposal that restored it?)  If it might as well be a title, it can be a title.

>>> Proposal 1049/3: The Power of Dave (Wonko)
>>
>> No.  You didn't say which nweek's ballot the proposal must be in.  This
>could
>> be used to retroactively change rules.
>
>No, it couldn't. It says, we treat the proposal as if it had been vetoed by
>the Admin. On the other hand, we've already implemented the proposal, so it
>doesn't matter if *now* we treat it like it had been vetoed. The past
>already happened, and even without anti-retroactivity clause, we can't
>change the past, for the same reason we can't change it in real life.

Of course we can change it.  "We treat the proposal as if it had been vetoed by the Admin."  One of the consequences of a proposal being vetoed is that the things it did don't get done.  So suddenly we've got rules whose current state is invalid because we're acting as if the proposal that changed them had been vetoed.

This is why I'm against "as if it had been" rules in general.

>>> Proposal 1059/0: Fix the scotch (Wonko)
>>
>> No.  There's already a formula for a Scottish Gnome.
>
>You object to multiple ways to mix the same Gnome?

I certainly object to giving you points for creating redundancy.

>>> Proposal 1060/1: The Royal Flush (Wonko)
>>
>> No.  It doesn't say how to modify the rule.
>>
>>> Proposal 1061/0: The Hand of Hands (Wonko)
>>
>> No.  It doesn't say how to modify the rule.
>>
>>> Proposal 1062/0: The International Stop Symbol (Wonko)
>>
>> No.  It doesn't say how to modify the rule.
>
>They say, 'Add to the hands rule'. That's how to modify the rule. Or have
>they changed the definition of 'add' while I wasn't looking?

The definition of "add" exists in a general sense.  It doesn't exist in the particular sense of taking text that's surrounded by curly braces and underscores and sticking it as is into the text of an existing rule, one that's already broken up into subsections. You didn't say, for example, "add as an appropriately numbered subsection to the hands rule", or even, "the specific method of doing so being left to the discretion of the Administrator."

						Glotmorf


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss